Monday, 9 September 2013

Part Two. The Sonnet.

I'm finally getting back into writing and studying after having a longer than intended break.
Part Two of the module looks at sonnets.

'If you want to say something for eight lines and take it back for six, write a sonnet.

Robert Frost

While I have no trouble recognising the features of the traditional Petrachan or Shakespearean sonnet - listed here;

Features of the Petrarchan sonnet.
5 basic features;

it consists of 14 lines

it is split into an octave (8 lines) and a sestet (6 lines)

it has a volta or a classic turn

it is metrically regular (usually iambic pentameter)

it has a formal rhyme scheme

Features of the Shakespearean sonnet.

5 basic features;

it has 14 lines

it is split into 3 quatrains (verses of 4 lines) and a 2 line couplet

the couplet forms the epigrammatic close - sums up what's been said in the preceding 12 lines

it generally has a regular rhyme scheme

it tends to have a regular meter - usually iambic pentameter

.... Many of the poems identified as sonnets seem to me to bear no resemblance. I'm hoping that as I work through Part Two I will reach a better understanding than my current level.

I often come across poems that I've loved since schooldays but failed to identify as sonnets, such as Wordsworth's ' Lines Composed upon Westminster Bridge'.

Lines Composed upon Westminster Bridge.Earth has not anything to show more fair:Dull would he be of soul who could pass byA sight so touching in its majesty:This City now doth, like a garment, wear

The beauty of the morning: silent, bare,Ships, towers, domes, theatres, and temples lieOpen unto the fields, and to the sky;All bright and glittering in the smokeless air.

Never did sun more beautifully steepIn his first splendour, valley, rock, or hill;Ne'er saw I, never felt, a calm so deep!

The river glideth at his own sweet will:Dear God! the very houses seem asleep;And all that mighty heart is lying still!Although described as a petrachian sonnet, instead of the expected octave and sestet format it is usually presented as two quatrains followed by two tercets. Confusing!

I've also always struggled with identifying the subverted and experimental forms. They appear to follow any structure that has little bearing on the traditional features yet they still sit under the 'sonnet' umbrella. For example even after studying Fennelly's (1996) wonderful sonnet ' Poem Not to Be Read at Your Wedding' (copied below), it still has me completely baffled. It has 14 lines and a volta at line 8 so presumably that's enough to qualify as a sonnet?

Poem Not to Be Read at Your Wedding

You ask me for a poem about love

in lieu of a wedding present, trying to save me

money. For three nights I've lain under

glow in the dark stars I've stuck to the ceiling

over my bed. I've listened to the songs

of the galaxy. Well Carmen, I would rather

give you your third set of steak knives

than tell you what I know. Let me find you

some other store-bought present. Don't

make me warn you of stars, how they see us

from that distance as miniature and breakable,

from the bride who tops the wedding cake

to the Mary on Pinto dashboards

holding her ripe red heart in her hands.

Exercise 1. Write two sonnets on the same theme. Choose one of the following themes:

a love poem to a partner

the secret life of .....(an animal of some kind)

the aftermath of a battle

The first should stick to the classic guidelines of a Petrachan sonnet, the second should be in experimental form.

The workbook suggests that I compare my two sonnets explaining why I chose to make the modifications I did to the classic form and how these changes have influenced 1. The way the sonnet reads, and 2. the meaning of the sonnet.

I really enjoy reading traditional sonnets. I like the melodious flow of iambic pentameter and the rhythm and rhyme makes the words and meaning memorable. When I attempt to apply these aspects to my own writing I feel that the poems become contrived. I struggle to achieve iambic pentameter and have difficulty recognising masculine and feminine endings so my lines tend to be more syllabic than iambic. I feel that the looseness and immediacy of free verse is lost and with it the 'honesty' of the poem. I like to use internal and half rhyme in my poems even if I don't use end rhyme and I've found it difficult to do so when following the rules of classic form.

Initially I didn't think that the different forms affected the meaning of the sonnets here, but on reflection I see that the the traditional form focuses more on the sale ring and the dealers whereas the subverted one focuses more on the buyer. This was not intended although the poem was inspired by my homing of an abused yearling pony from an animal sanctuary. As a foal the pony went through the experience written about and was lucky to survive and I find it interesting to discover how my feelings towards the auctioneers, the callous breeder and the incompetent buyer come across in both poems but with different foci in each one.

The final question is 'Did your modification improve the sonnet?' and despite the contrived feeling I don't think it did. Neither do I feel that I've managed to convey my outrage in either one and I think this is because I find the both the form and the word/line limitations too restrictive for my current ability. Also the free verse sonnet was written after the traditional one and was further limited by the restriction of trying to develop it from the already constrained first poem.